Oh, heavens no, the Sheriff of San Francisco did not actually say, "This is all Obama's fault." The Sheriff conducted a press briefing yesterday to push back against federal fingers pointing at the Sheriff's Office for the release of accused murdered Francisco Sanchez. Many of the fingers pointing at the Sheriff seem not to take into account the fact that the Obama administration turned Sanchez over to San Francisco because it discovered an old, really old, stale, marijuana warrant from 1995. So, in defending his part in the indefensible circumstances that led to Sanchez shooting Kathryn Steinle, the Sheriff rightly pointed to Obama's Department of Homeland Security.
Sheriff Mirkarimi said, ICE "did not provide the Sheriff's Department with a warrant or a judicial order to hold him for proceedings." The Sheriff, of course, professed every intention to obey lawful orders while respecting the constitutional rights of the illegal immigrant felon, Francisco Sanchez. He explained, "Had ICE sought the requested legal order or warrant, the San Francisco Sheriff's Department naturally and will always comply and would have complied if that legal order or warrant would have been presented to us."
But is there any difference in him saying, as he did, that ICE failed to provide the appropriate documents to insure that Sanchez was returned to ICE custody, and Sheriff Mirkarimi saying, "the Obama administration failed to provide the appropriate documents to insure that Sanchez was returned to ICE custody"?
The truth is, from the beginning to the end, this ugly affair has the hallmarks of an Obama administration program.
First, it involves mishandled weapons. Think Operation Fast and Furious, a DOJ/BATFE Operation designed to track the flow of weapons to Mexican cartels, one result of which was that weapons sold in the US to straw purchasers ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels and weapons ended up being used to kill American law enforcement agents and Mexican civilians, including children.Mr. Sanchez having apparently claimed that he found a gun in the trash, a belonging to a federal agent. It had previously been reported stolen from his vehicle.
Second, there is the matter of how Mr. Sanchez came to be turned over the the City and County of San(ctuary) Francisco. As the Sheriff confirmed in his press conference, the City and County DID NOT PURSUE Mr. Sanchez in the hands of the federal government. Instead, as Sanchez's sentence for illegal entry was coming to an end, and his forced repatriation to Mexico was impending, ICE officials discovered a STALE warrant, dated back to 1995, for possession and sale of MARIJUANA. ICE contacted San Francisco, and then caused Sanchez to be turned over to the Sheriff for further processing.
Once Sanchez was in their custody, Sanctuary City San Francisco proceeded with startling speed. He was delivered to the Sheriff on March 25, 2015. On March 26, 2015, Sanchez appeared in court where all charges were dropped. Two weeks later, ICE having not provided the kind of documents to Sanctuary City San Francisco that ICE knew it would require (a court order, or an appropriate warrant), San Francisco released Sanchez.
Pretend away all you want. The Department of Homeland Security failed utterly here. DHS's ICE agency knew that Sanctuary Cities, like San Francisco, objected to ICE's practice of issuing detainer notices for suspects in custody. Right or wrong, Sanctuary Cities have determined that they will require ICE to comply with what the Sanctuary Cities consider to be appropriate, constitutional, due process of law. By its knowledge of their practices, the actions of ICE turning illegals over to Sanctuary Cities' officials "as a courtesy" so that outstanding state and local warrants can be satisfied, make ICE culpable for the evident disregard for public safety embodied in Sanctuary Cities' practices.
ICE should discontinue extending courtesies to defiant communities.
Congress should discontinue funding of related programs in Sanctuary Cities until those cities agree to comply with ICE detainers.
And we all should discomfit the administration for its disregard of public safety, DHS and IHS for its coddling of illegals with multiple felony convictions, and Sanctuary Cities for their refusal to secure their communities from these obvious dangers.
Showing posts with label san francisco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label san francisco. Show all posts
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Monday, July 6, 2015
OPINION: ICE Did Not Want Killer of Kathryn Steinle Deported So Giving Him to San Francisco Suited Its Purposes
Be very careful how you hear what you hear. Even on Fox News, where the preferred candidate is not, I think, Donald Trump. Do not let them, or anyone, give you the impression that the federal government is innocent of the blood of Kathryn Steinle.
Remember this fact: ICE turned Sanchez over to the SF Sheriff KNOWING that SF declared itself a Sanctuary City 26 years ago, that SF declared non-cooperation with ICE detainers 26 years ago, and that, when ICE turned Sanchez over to SF, it was for possible prosecution for a marijuana charge.
Ask yourself, if ICE had Sanchez, and if Sanchez was DUE TO BE DEPORTED yet again, and ICE turned Sanchez over to SF for prosecution of a very old marijuana related charge (with high likelihood that SF would choose not to prosecute such charge), what was ICE actually doing?
Think.
Even if it hurts, think.
Sanchez was, according to news reports, "ready" to be deported. Instead, ICE delivered him to the city authorities in a declared Sanctuary City. They did not deport him.
Come on.
You can do it.
YES! YOU'RE RIGHT!
The federal government, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, were avoiding the deportation of a convicted felon DELIBERATELY. Rather than deport him, they transferred him to a city that they KNEW would likely (a) not prosecute him and (b) not comply with its detainer request but, instead, release him.
Heads should roll. In San Francisco. In Washington, DC.
Remember this fact: ICE turned Sanchez over to the SF Sheriff KNOWING that SF declared itself a Sanctuary City 26 years ago, that SF declared non-cooperation with ICE detainers 26 years ago, and that, when ICE turned Sanchez over to SF, it was for possible prosecution for a marijuana charge.
Ask yourself, if ICE had Sanchez, and if Sanchez was DUE TO BE DEPORTED yet again, and ICE turned Sanchez over to SF for prosecution of a very old marijuana related charge (with high likelihood that SF would choose not to prosecute such charge), what was ICE actually doing?
Think.
Even if it hurts, think.
Sanchez was, according to news reports, "ready" to be deported. Instead, ICE delivered him to the city authorities in a declared Sanctuary City. They did not deport him.
Come on.
You can do it.
YES! YOU'RE RIGHT!
The federal government, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, were avoiding the deportation of a convicted felon DELIBERATELY. Rather than deport him, they transferred him to a city that they KNEW would likely (a) not prosecute him and (b) not comply with its detainer request but, instead, release him.
Heads should roll. In San Francisco. In Washington, DC.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Kathryn Steinle: Sad Death in a City of Refuge and How Congress Can Address the Failure of CoRs to Protect The Public
The City and County of San Francisco sacrificed one of its newer residents last week as part of its on-going flaunting of US immigration laws. Across the Nation, as we learned the identity of the accused shooter of Kathryn Steinle, we felt the anger burning in our minds and hearts. How is it possible that the City's Sheriff's Department released a convicted (seven times), felon on the thin excuse that ICE detainer requests are "not legal?" How is it possible, in the first instance, that ICE surrendered the accused to the Sheriff "as a courtesy" so that the City could prosecute him on outstanding warrants, knowing as ICE did that the Sheriff's Department would NOT honor ICE detainer requests?
Much of this Kafkaesque insanity derives from the City and County of San Francisco suffering under a delusion. Its delusion is that it is responsible for the determination of United States immigration and naturalization policy. Under the US Constitution, however, the City and County of San Francisco has no power to determine immigration and naturalization law. Only the United States Congress, pursuant to Article I of the Constitution, has the power to make such law.
The City and County of San Francisco may view its status as a matter of high principle. In fact, here is what the City says about its City and County of Refuge status:
Before government officials begin spinning their lines, YOU NEED TO KNOW that THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS CAN DO about American cities that choose to sacrifice the lives of American citizens in the name of "Sanctuary." Congress can CONDITION THE RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDS on COMPLIANCE by program recipients with ICE detainer requests.
The Congress has the SPENDING CLAUSE power to coerce Cities of Sanctuary to comply with detainer requests or forgo federal funds.
Understand, I am not saying that Congress can, or should, simply enact a law demanding that Cities, Counties and States provide that cooperation. Such unfunded mandates offend important federalism principles. Rather, I am saying that Congress can require that cooperation of cities, counties and States as a condition of the receipt of federal program funds by them.
On several occasions, the Supreme Court has confirmed that Congress can condition the receipt of federal funds on compliance with federal program requirements. For example, back in the late 1970s, Congress conditioned receipt by the States of a portion of highway funding on their raising the legal drinking age to 21 years. South Dakota complained that the funding condition violated the 21st Amendment. [The 21st Amendment, ending Prohibition, gave plenary power over the sale and distribution of alcohol to the States.] In South Dakota v. Dole, affirming the constitutionality of the requirement and the program, the Supreme Court explained the interplay of the Spending Clause power and such federal program requirements:
Essentially, South Dakota v. Dole (and other Supreme Court cases) confirm that the Constitution allows Congress to pursue policy goals by a "carrot and stick" approach. In South Dakota, the Court recognized that the goal Congress sought to achieve was to raise the legal drinking age across the Nation to improve safety. The "carrot" was a portion of reserved federal highway funding; the "stick" was the loss of that portion of funds by States that would refuse to bring their legal drinking age limit into compliance with federal policy.
To be clear, as South Dakota makes clear, Congress cannot tie just any carrot to just any stick. In other words, "conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated 'to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.'" In South Dakota, the connection between drinking age, driver licensing, and highway funding was sufficient to permit Congress to apply that carrot and stick.
So what can Congress do in response to the murder of Kathryn Steinle?
Congress can condition the receipt of relevant funding on actual cooperation of program recipients with requirements designed to serve policy goals identified by Congress. In South Dakota v. Dole, receipt of a portion of highway funds depended on raising drinking ages as desired by Congress. More recently, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebellius, the first Supreme Court case about Obamacare, the Court actually rejected a portion of the Obamacare statute that conditioned receipt of ANY MEDICAID FUNDING BY STATES with States' agreement to expand Medicaid programs as proposed the Act. Chief Justice Roberts concluded that COMPLETE DENIAL OF MEDICAID FUNDS to States was too big a stick, and that the proper stick might have been to limit MEDICAID funding to pre-Obamacare levels. [Most will recall this case for a separate holding by the Court sustaining the constitutionality of the "Individual Mandate" on the ground that the mandate was a tax, not a penalty.]
Congress can identify the funds appropriated in relation to immigration, naturalization, law enforcement, community policing, and justice programs. Then, Congress can condition receipt of a relevant portion of funds (not necessarily all, Congress would have to make that decision, as a matter of policy, and in keeping with the Supreme Court's decisions on the subject). Having forecast how the money it appropriates will be distributed and for what purposes, Congress would need only to impose as a condition of receipt of the funds a requirement of cooperation with ICE detainer requests as a condition on the receipt of funds.
How would this impact the City and County of San Francisco? Well, of course, that depends on the size of the carrot and the size of the stick. Here is what we know for sure. San Francisco receives a relatively princely sum from the federal government.The City and County of San Francisco receives about a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS in federal funding annually. But that is only about 5% of the City's general funds each year.
Perhaps not all of that $250,000,000.00 in federal funds would be affected by a congressional "carrot and stick." Perhaps it would. That determination belongs to Congress, guided by an understanding that the Supreme Court does give such programs a careful review to insure that relevant Tenth Amendment interests are preserved, and that Congress has not overstepped.
But, had Congress the will to do so, it could invite San Francisco and other federal grantees to respect our Constitutional order, and to give place to national policy over its own preferences about immigration and naturalization. Whether Congress will act, of course, remains to be seen.
Much of this Kafkaesque insanity derives from the City and County of San Francisco suffering under a delusion. Its delusion is that it is responsible for the determination of United States immigration and naturalization policy. Under the US Constitution, however, the City and County of San Francisco has no power to determine immigration and naturalization law. Only the United States Congress, pursuant to Article I of the Constitution, has the power to make such law.
The City and County of San Francisco may view its status as a matter of high principle. In fact, here is what the City says about its City and County of Refuge status:
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance) which prohibits City employees from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration investigations or arrests unless such help is required by federal or state law or a warrant. The Ordinance is rooted in the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980's, when churches across the country provided refuge to Central Americans fleeing civil wars in their countries. In providing such assistance, faith communities were responding to the difficulties immigrants faced in obtaining refugee status from the U.S. government. Municipalities across the country followed suit by adopting sanctuary ordinances.
In recent years, the Sanctuary Movement has experienced a rebirth, as grassroots organizations, faith communities, and local government have stood firmly against repressive immigration proposals in Congress and immigration raids that separate families. In February 2007, Mayor Gavin Newsom reaffirmed San Francisco's commitment to immigrant communities by issuing an Executive Order that called on City departments to develop protocol and training on the Sanctuary Ordinance.So San Francisco adopted its City and County of Refuge Ordinance. Its ordinance quite directly declared the City's refusal to cooperate with federal law enforcement. San Francisco's neat principle comes with a price, and Kathryn Steinle appears now to be the latest known victim of San Francisco's "principled" stand.
Before government officials begin spinning their lines, YOU NEED TO KNOW that THERE IS SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS CAN DO about American cities that choose to sacrifice the lives of American citizens in the name of "Sanctuary." Congress can CONDITION THE RECEIPT OF FEDERAL FUNDS on COMPLIANCE by program recipients with ICE detainer requests.
The Congress has the SPENDING CLAUSE power to coerce Cities of Sanctuary to comply with detainer requests or forgo federal funds.
Understand, I am not saying that Congress can, or should, simply enact a law demanding that Cities, Counties and States provide that cooperation. Such unfunded mandates offend important federalism principles. Rather, I am saying that Congress can require that cooperation of cities, counties and States as a condition of the receipt of federal program funds by them.
On several occasions, the Supreme Court has confirmed that Congress can condition the receipt of federal funds on compliance with federal program requirements. For example, back in the late 1970s, Congress conditioned receipt by the States of a portion of highway funding on their raising the legal drinking age to 21 years. South Dakota complained that the funding condition violated the 21st Amendment. [The 21st Amendment, ending Prohibition, gave plenary power over the sale and distribution of alcohol to the States.] In South Dakota v. Dole, affirming the constitutionality of the requirement and the program, the Supreme Court explained the interplay of the Spending Clause power and such federal program requirements:
The Constitution empowers Congress to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." []. Incident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power "to further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives." []. The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler, [], where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined that "the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I's "enumerated legislative fields," [], may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.
The spending power is of course not unlimited, [], but is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare." []. In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress. [] Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation." [] . Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs." []. Finally, we have noted that other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. [].
Essentially, South Dakota v. Dole (and other Supreme Court cases) confirm that the Constitution allows Congress to pursue policy goals by a "carrot and stick" approach. In South Dakota, the Court recognized that the goal Congress sought to achieve was to raise the legal drinking age across the Nation to improve safety. The "carrot" was a portion of reserved federal highway funding; the "stick" was the loss of that portion of funds by States that would refuse to bring their legal drinking age limit into compliance with federal policy.
To be clear, as South Dakota makes clear, Congress cannot tie just any carrot to just any stick. In other words, "conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated 'to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.'" In South Dakota, the connection between drinking age, driver licensing, and highway funding was sufficient to permit Congress to apply that carrot and stick.
So what can Congress do in response to the murder of Kathryn Steinle?
Congress can condition the receipt of relevant funding on actual cooperation of program recipients with requirements designed to serve policy goals identified by Congress. In South Dakota v. Dole, receipt of a portion of highway funds depended on raising drinking ages as desired by Congress. More recently, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebellius, the first Supreme Court case about Obamacare, the Court actually rejected a portion of the Obamacare statute that conditioned receipt of ANY MEDICAID FUNDING BY STATES with States' agreement to expand Medicaid programs as proposed the Act. Chief Justice Roberts concluded that COMPLETE DENIAL OF MEDICAID FUNDS to States was too big a stick, and that the proper stick might have been to limit MEDICAID funding to pre-Obamacare levels. [Most will recall this case for a separate holding by the Court sustaining the constitutionality of the "Individual Mandate" on the ground that the mandate was a tax, not a penalty.]
Congress can identify the funds appropriated in relation to immigration, naturalization, law enforcement, community policing, and justice programs. Then, Congress can condition receipt of a relevant portion of funds (not necessarily all, Congress would have to make that decision, as a matter of policy, and in keeping with the Supreme Court's decisions on the subject). Having forecast how the money it appropriates will be distributed and for what purposes, Congress would need only to impose as a condition of receipt of the funds a requirement of cooperation with ICE detainer requests as a condition on the receipt of funds.
How would this impact the City and County of San Francisco? Well, of course, that depends on the size of the carrot and the size of the stick. Here is what we know for sure. San Francisco receives a relatively princely sum from the federal government.The City and County of San Francisco receives about a QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS in federal funding annually. But that is only about 5% of the City's general funds each year.
 |
| http://sfcontroller.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=4497 |
But, had Congress the will to do so, it could invite San Francisco and other federal grantees to respect our Constitutional order, and to give place to national policy over its own preferences about immigration and naturalization. Whether Congress will act, of course, remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)